Satender Kumar Singla Vs. Directorate General GST Intelligence (DGGI) (Rohtak Court)

BA/1478/2020
Directorate General GST Intelligence (DGGI) Vs. Satender Kumar Singla

Present: Sh. Manjul Bhardwaj, Intelligence Officer on behalf of the department.

Accused in custody assisted by Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate. 

The present order shall dispose of the bail application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Satinder Kumar.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in this matter and has also been illegally arrested. The only incriminating evidence against the applicant in this case is the statement of one Hanuman Singh. No recovery has been effected or going to be effected from the applicant, as the alleged allegations pertain purely to the documentary evidence. The maximum punishment liable to be granted for the offences under consideration is 5 years. The applicant has been allegedly roped in vicariously for the commission of offence by other persons, whereas there is no concept of vicarious liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has further contended that the aforesaid Hanuman has been made an accused in an FIR No. 38 dated 6.01.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, P.S. Chandni Bagh, Panipat for running a bogus firm. He submits that there is nothing on record to even suggest that the applicant had ever withdrawn any amount or taken any benefits from the alleged bogus firms namely M/s Hanuman Enterprises and M/s Jai Bhagwati Sales. The Ld. Counsel requests that keeping in view the instructions issued pursuant to the meeting held on 12.11.2020 held under the Chairpersonship of Hon’ble Justice Daya Chaudhary, Judge Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, the accused may kindly be granted concession of bail keeping in view of the prevalent Covid-19 Pandemic situation.

4. The aforesaid application has been replied by the respondent/complainant through the counsel, wherein the averments made in the application have been countered. It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the present applicant has acted as a mastermind in getting establishing and registered bogus firms & in issuing only invoices without actual supply of goods and this was done in order to earn commission. It has been also submitted that the offence under consideration do not refer to the question of vicarious liability, as it relates to any person who commits the offence defined under the relevant section.

To know more in details find the attachment file